What do you think?
Rate this book
Complete Works of Julius Caesar
Book Description Publication Date: January 14, 2013 The Ancient Classics series provides eReaders with the wisdom of the Classical world, with both English translations and the original Latin and Greek texts. This comprehensive eBook presents the complete works of Julius Caesar, with beautiful illustrations, informative introductions and the usual Delphi bonus material. (4MB Version 1)
* Beautifully illustrated with images relating to Caesar's life and works * Features the complete works of Caesar, in both English translation and the original Latin * Concise introductions to the commentaries and other works * Provides a special dual English and Latin section, allowing readers to compare Caesar’s complete works paragraph by paragraph – ideal for study * Special campaign maps to complement the text, originally appearing in the Loeb Classical Library editions * Includes McDevitte’s celebrated translations * Images of famous paintings and sculptures inspired by Caesar’s life * Excellent formatting of the texts * Easily locate the sections or books you want to read with individual contents tables * Includes Caesar's rare spurious works * Features two bonus biographies - discover Caesar's ancient world * Scholarly ordering of texts into chronological order and literary genres
CONTENTS:
The Translations THE GALLIC WARS THE CIVIL WAR ON THE ALEXANDRINE WAR ON THE AFRICAN WAR ON THE HISPANIC WAR
Dual Latin and English Texts LIST OF DUAL TEXTS
The Latin Texts LIST OF LATIN TEXTS
The Biographies THE LIFE OF JULIUS CAESAR by Suetonius THE HISTORY OF JULIUS CAESAR by Jacob Abbott
* Beautifully illustrated with images relating to Caesar's life and works * Features the complete works of Caesar, in both English translation and the original Latin * Concise introductions to the commentaries and other works * Provides a special dual English and Latin section, allowing readers to compare Caesar’s complete works paragraph by paragraph – ideal for study * Special campaign maps to complement the text, originally appearing in the Loeb Classical Library editions * Includes McDevitte’s celebrated translations * Images of famous paintings and sculptures inspired by Caesar’s life * Excellent formatting of the texts * Easily locate the sections or books you want to read with individual contents tables * Includes Caesar's rare spurious works * Features two bonus biographies - discover Caesar's ancient world * Scholarly ordering of texts into chronological order and literary genres
CONTENTS:
The Translations THE GALLIC WARS THE CIVIL WAR ON THE ALEXANDRINE WAR ON THE AFRICAN WAR ON THE HISPANIC WAR
Dual Latin and English Texts LIST OF DUAL TEXTS
The Latin Texts LIST OF LATIN TEXTS
The Biographies THE LIFE OF JULIUS CAESAR by Suetonius THE HISTORY OF JULIUS CAESAR by Jacob Abbott
1771 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 51
734 people are currently reading
2703 people want to read
About the author
Gaius Julius Caesar
2,016 books545 followersborn 12 July 100 BC
died 15 March 44 BC
Statesman and historian Julius Caesar, fully named Gaius Julius Caesar, general, invaded Britain in 55 BC, crushed the army of the politician Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus in 48 BC, pursued other enemies to Egypt, installed Cleopatra as queen in 47 BC, and returned to Rome, and the people in 45 BC gave him a mandate to rule as dictator for life; Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Junius Brutus feared that he intended to establish a monarchy and led a group of republicans, who on 15 March 44 BC murdered him.
Marcus Licinius Crassus joined Caesar and Pompey in the first triumvirate to challenge the power of the senate in 60 BC.
Pompey with Caesar and Crassus formed a ruling triumvirate from 60 BC to 53 BC, but Caesar later defeated Pompey.
Caesar conquered Iberian peoples of Aquitania in 56 BC.
Cassius led members of the conspiracy to assassinate Caesar.
Brutus conspired to assassinate Caesar.
After his assassination, Gaius Octavius, his grandnephew, in 44 BC took the name Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, to whom English texts often refer simply as Octavian.
He notably authored Latin prose. He played a critical role in the events to the demise and the rise of the empire.
In 60 BC, Caesar and Marcus Licinius Crassus formed an alliance that dominated for several years. Marcus Porcius Cato the Younger with the frequent support of Marcus Tullius Cicero among the Optimates within the senate opposed their attempts to amass power as Populares.
Victories of Caesar in the Gallic wars, completed before 51 BC, extended territory to the English Channel and the Rhine. Caesar first then built a bridge across the Rhine and crossed the channel.
After the death of Crassus in 53 BC, his rival realigned with the senate, but these achievements granted him unmatched military power and threatened to eclipse the standing. With the Gallic wars concluded, the senate ordered Caesar to step from his military.
Caesar refused the order and instead crossed the Rubicon with the thirteenth legion, left his province, and illegally entered Italy under arms to mark his defiance in 49 BC. Civil war resulted, and victory put Caesar him in an unrivalled position of power and influence.
Julius Caesar assumed control of government and afterward began a program of social reforms, including the creation of the calendar. He centralized the bureaucracy, and proclamation "in perpetuity" eventually gave him additional authority. Nevertheless, people resolved not the underlying conflicts, and on the ides, 15 March 44 BC, rebellious senators assassinated Caesar.
We know much from own accounts of military campaigns of Caesar and from other contemporary sources, mainly the letters and speeches of Cicero and the writings of Gaius Sallustius Crispus. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus and Mestrius Plutarchus wrote the later biographies, also major sources. Many people consider supreme military greatness of Caesar.
People regarded Caesar during his time of the best orators and prose authors in Latin; even Cicero spoke highly of his rhetoric and style. Only war commentaries of Caesar survived. From other works, other authors quote a few sentences. He wrote his funeral oration for Julia, his paternal aunt, among his lost works. Cicero published praise; in response, he wrote Anticato , a document, to defame Cato. Ancient sources also mention poems of Julius Caesar.
A new series of civil wars broke, and people never restored the constitutional government. Octavian, adopted heir of Gaius Julius Caesar, defeated his opponents in the civil war and afterward rose to sole power as Augustus. Octavian set about solidifying his power, and the era of the empire began.
died 15 March 44 BC
Statesman and historian Julius Caesar, fully named Gaius Julius Caesar, general, invaded Britain in 55 BC, crushed the army of the politician Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus in 48 BC, pursued other enemies to Egypt, installed Cleopatra as queen in 47 BC, and returned to Rome, and the people in 45 BC gave him a mandate to rule as dictator for life; Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Junius Brutus feared that he intended to establish a monarchy and led a group of republicans, who on 15 March 44 BC murdered him.
Marcus Licinius Crassus joined Caesar and Pompey in the first triumvirate to challenge the power of the senate in 60 BC.
Pompey with Caesar and Crassus formed a ruling triumvirate from 60 BC to 53 BC, but Caesar later defeated Pompey.
Caesar conquered Iberian peoples of Aquitania in 56 BC.
Cassius led members of the conspiracy to assassinate Caesar.
Brutus conspired to assassinate Caesar.
After his assassination, Gaius Octavius, his grandnephew, in 44 BC took the name Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, to whom English texts often refer simply as Octavian.
He notably authored Latin prose. He played a critical role in the events to the demise and the rise of the empire.
In 60 BC, Caesar and Marcus Licinius Crassus formed an alliance that dominated for several years. Marcus Porcius Cato the Younger with the frequent support of Marcus Tullius Cicero among the Optimates within the senate opposed their attempts to amass power as Populares.
Victories of Caesar in the Gallic wars, completed before 51 BC, extended territory to the English Channel and the Rhine. Caesar first then built a bridge across the Rhine and crossed the channel.
After the death of Crassus in 53 BC, his rival realigned with the senate, but these achievements granted him unmatched military power and threatened to eclipse the standing. With the Gallic wars concluded, the senate ordered Caesar to step from his military.
Caesar refused the order and instead crossed the Rubicon with the thirteenth legion, left his province, and illegally entered Italy under arms to mark his defiance in 49 BC. Civil war resulted, and victory put Caesar him in an unrivalled position of power and influence.
Julius Caesar assumed control of government and afterward began a program of social reforms, including the creation of the calendar. He centralized the bureaucracy, and proclamation "in perpetuity" eventually gave him additional authority. Nevertheless, people resolved not the underlying conflicts, and on the ides, 15 March 44 BC, rebellious senators assassinated Caesar.
We know much from own accounts of military campaigns of Caesar and from other contemporary sources, mainly the letters and speeches of Cicero and the writings of Gaius Sallustius Crispus. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus and Mestrius Plutarchus wrote the later biographies, also major sources. Many people consider supreme military greatness of Caesar.
People regarded Caesar during his time of the best orators and prose authors in Latin; even Cicero spoke highly of his rhetoric and style. Only war commentaries of Caesar survived. From other works, other authors quote a few sentences. He wrote his funeral oration for Julia, his paternal aunt, among his lost works. Cicero published praise; in response, he wrote Anticato , a document, to defame Cato. Ancient sources also mention poems of Julius Caesar.
A new series of civil wars broke, and people never restored the constitutional government. Octavian, adopted heir of Gaius Julius Caesar, defeated his opponents in the civil war and afterward rose to sole power as Augustus. Octavian set about solidifying his power, and the era of the empire began.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews
January 30, 2020
After spending the month with Caesar, I feel a tinge of sadness at finishing up this book. I really enjoyed all the books and especially all the quirks of Caesar and the four other authors found in this book. While I liked some more than others, each book was amazing and I really feel like I gained something by reading them. While the book may say Landmark Julius Caesar , there is much more in this book than just Caesar. Hirtius and the three author anonymous authors are all their own characters that shine brightly through the work. It may all be about Caesar, but each author brings a unique and unbelievably fascinating take on their general. The authors of the African and Spanish wars shined the brightest. The former wrote with a real affable style that showed how Caesar’s “”propaganda”” (I hate using that word to describe things in antiquity) worked on his own officers. The latter wrote in such a fever pace, liberally quoted from poetry, and, unlike all the other authors, was not shy about discussing Caesarian atrocities against the enemy. Although suffering from heavy corruption, his description of the battle of Munda and its fallout are still very vividly implanted in my mind.
From my most to least favourite:
Gallic (easily up there with The Annals as one of my favourite Roman Histories)
African
Civil
Spanish
Alexandrian
Due to the nature of this book, it is quite hard to give an in-depth review of every single book. As such, I will focus more on the entire collection.
For me, the quality of the translation and the notes are of the greatest importance. Kurt Raaflaub did an outstanding job. Compared to the previous translations in the series, Raaflaub really focused in on the text. You can easily see the care he took in presenting this translation by how he focused on the very specific structure of the writings and in his dealings with corruptions and lacunae. There are copious footnotes dealing with these translation issues. I praise his choice of allowing the authors voice to shine through in his translations. He allows the colloquial language of the Spanish War to remain. In some places, he sacrifices the ease of reading so that he can allow the authors heavy use of not specifying the subjects and direct objects to come through into the English. Throughout the books, he draws the reader’s attention to important points that don’t come through in the English (like the use of historic infinitives in the Gallic war or the subjunctive in the Spanish war).
I get that the average reader might not be that interested in stuff like that when reading a translation, but I greatly appreciate it. I’ve already touched on Raaflaubs notes but I feel the need to focus a bit more on that. He did an amazing job supplying the reader with useful information. In my previous experience with this series, the translators tended to focus only on locating places on a map or drawing the reader’s attention to pictures. Yes, Raaflaub does this here, but his major focus is on providing the reader with important supplementary material. There is rarely a page that goes by that does not include details of archaeological information or referencing other authors descriptions of the events.
I’m adding Kurt Raaflaub to my list of favourite translators. And I’m adding Caesar to my list of favourite writers from Antiquity.
From my most to least favourite:
Gallic (easily up there with The Annals as one of my favourite Roman Histories)
African
Civil
Spanish
Alexandrian
Due to the nature of this book, it is quite hard to give an in-depth review of every single book. As such, I will focus more on the entire collection.
For me, the quality of the translation and the notes are of the greatest importance. Kurt Raaflaub did an outstanding job. Compared to the previous translations in the series, Raaflaub really focused in on the text. You can easily see the care he took in presenting this translation by how he focused on the very specific structure of the writings and in his dealings with corruptions and lacunae. There are copious footnotes dealing with these translation issues. I praise his choice of allowing the authors voice to shine through in his translations. He allows the colloquial language of the Spanish War to remain. In some places, he sacrifices the ease of reading so that he can allow the authors heavy use of not specifying the subjects and direct objects to come through into the English. Throughout the books, he draws the reader’s attention to important points that don’t come through in the English (like the use of historic infinitives in the Gallic war or the subjunctive in the Spanish war).
I get that the average reader might not be that interested in stuff like that when reading a translation, but I greatly appreciate it. I’ve already touched on Raaflaubs notes but I feel the need to focus a bit more on that. He did an amazing job supplying the reader with useful information. In my previous experience with this series, the translators tended to focus only on locating places on a map or drawing the reader’s attention to pictures. Yes, Raaflaub does this here, but his major focus is on providing the reader with important supplementary material. There is rarely a page that goes by that does not include details of archaeological information or referencing other authors descriptions of the events.
I’m adding Kurt Raaflaub to my list of favourite translators. And I’m adding Caesar to my list of favourite writers from Antiquity.
December 23, 2023
Until I purchased this book I had never attempted to read the works of Julius Caesar. And after reading this I'm glad that I waited until now to do so, as I doubt that I would have found them as accessible and comprehensible as Kurt Raaflaub makes them in this translation.
The first step is the essay-length biography that serves as the Introduction to the book. In it, Raaflaub gives readers an overview of Caesar's life that is worth reading even for those already familiar with it, as in it he provides a helpful context for the books that follow. These he presents in chronological order, starting with Caesar's Gallic Wars and concluding with the Spanish Wars. As Raaflaub explains, the inclusion of the later books in what is termed the "Corpus Caesarianum" represents something of a fudge, as their authorship is increasingly distant from Caesar, with only a few portions of the Alexandrian War based on Caesar's own drafts and the African War and the Spanish War written entirely by other authors, both of whom were likely officers who served in those campaigns. Yet the value of even the later works as firsthand accounts of Caesar's campaigns is enormous, justifying their inclusion here.
It is Raaflaub's labors with the translation, though, that make this book such a worthwhile read. Unfamiliar as I am with Caesar's writings, I cannot comment on the quality of the translation from the original Latin or how it compares to the English-language translations undertaken by other scholars. This is why I especially appreciated Raaflaub's extensive footnotes and the supplementary materials he provides. The notes helped provide a modern explanation for the various Roman concepts and names mentioned in the text, while the maps and images provide further context and definition. Best of all, their inclusion within the text itself, with the notes at the bottom of the pages and the maps next to the relevant passages, saves readers from laboriously paging back and forth through the book for them. Together they make Raaflaub's edition an incredibly useful edition of Caesar's works, one that makes his classic account of his campaigns accessible to readers today.
The first step is the essay-length biography that serves as the Introduction to the book. In it, Raaflaub gives readers an overview of Caesar's life that is worth reading even for those already familiar with it, as in it he provides a helpful context for the books that follow. These he presents in chronological order, starting with Caesar's Gallic Wars and concluding with the Spanish Wars. As Raaflaub explains, the inclusion of the later books in what is termed the "Corpus Caesarianum" represents something of a fudge, as their authorship is increasingly distant from Caesar, with only a few portions of the Alexandrian War based on Caesar's own drafts and the African War and the Spanish War written entirely by other authors, both of whom were likely officers who served in those campaigns. Yet the value of even the later works as firsthand accounts of Caesar's campaigns is enormous, justifying their inclusion here.
It is Raaflaub's labors with the translation, though, that make this book such a worthwhile read. Unfamiliar as I am with Caesar's writings, I cannot comment on the quality of the translation from the original Latin or how it compares to the English-language translations undertaken by other scholars. This is why I especially appreciated Raaflaub's extensive footnotes and the supplementary materials he provides. The notes helped provide a modern explanation for the various Roman concepts and names mentioned in the text, while the maps and images provide further context and definition. Best of all, their inclusion within the text itself, with the notes at the bottom of the pages and the maps next to the relevant passages, saves readers from laboriously paging back and forth through the book for them. Together they make Raaflaub's edition an incredibly useful edition of Caesar's works, one that makes his classic account of his campaigns accessible to readers today.
December 29, 2022
This truly deserves the moniker of magnum opus. As a young high school student, I suffered through the Latin translation to English of Caesar's Gallic Wars. This work is the culmination of years of work by Kurt A Raaflaub. It's a beautifully detailed (with copious notes and maps) translation of Ceasar's five military chronicles.
The first, and most recognized, will be the first book- "The Gallic War" which is Caesar's own account of the two invasions of Britain and the conquest of Gaul. The second book "Civil War" is his description of the conflict between Caesar and Pompey.
Along with these two works are three short works known as "The Alexandrian War", "The African War", and "The Spanish War". These were written by unknown authors who were eyewitnesses to the events.
Not only is this very interesting reading for any Roman history fan, but it is also required reading for those who wish to pursue the path toward a Military History degree, especially in the field of hoplology (the study of human combative behavior).
Raaflaub's translation is smooth and captures the essence of what Caesar was trying to convey, as well as detailed notes and annotation on every page, an excellent appendices section detailing the Who is Who of Caesar's time. The illustrations and maps not only give a great idea as to the location of events, it also shows the tactical brilliance of Caesar and explains how these battles and campaigns were thought out and fought.
Both a great resource for scholars and laymen, this is a wonderful edition and a masterful work. Highly recommended.
The first, and most recognized, will be the first book- "The Gallic War" which is Caesar's own account of the two invasions of Britain and the conquest of Gaul. The second book "Civil War" is his description of the conflict between Caesar and Pompey.
Along with these two works are three short works known as "The Alexandrian War", "The African War", and "The Spanish War". These were written by unknown authors who were eyewitnesses to the events.
Not only is this very interesting reading for any Roman history fan, but it is also required reading for those who wish to pursue the path toward a Military History degree, especially in the field of hoplology (the study of human combative behavior).
Raaflaub's translation is smooth and captures the essence of what Caesar was trying to convey, as well as detailed notes and annotation on every page, an excellent appendices section detailing the Who is Who of Caesar's time. The illustrations and maps not only give a great idea as to the location of events, it also shows the tactical brilliance of Caesar and explains how these battles and campaigns were thought out and fought.
Both a great resource for scholars and laymen, this is a wonderful edition and a masterful work. Highly recommended.
November 12, 2018
I had not previously read the chronicles of military campaigns written by Julius Caesar. However, I had read other histories in the Landmark series of translations, such as Thucydides and Herodotus, so I knew the new translation and presentation of Caesar would be a first-class achievement. I wasn't disappointed. It's a delicious read, authoritative in its information, complete, as are all the Landmark publications, with extensive maps, explanatory footnotes, and many appendices (both in the physical book and in online links) supporting every page of the text. Like the other Landmark translations, it's impressive in every way.
Only the histories of the Gallic War and the Civil War were actually written by Caesar himself. The commentaries of the Alexandrian War, the African War, and the Spanish War were written by subordinates who'd served with him. I was mildly surprised that I thought the prose of the other--unknown, as it turns out--authors to be more fluid and engaging than that of Caesar. And maybe a bit more honest and less self-serving.
More than the story of Caesar's military campaigns, this is masterfully-presented history. Reading the book is like visiting another time and place. It's that detailed, though admittedly this is essentially military history and doesn't offer much insight into the social, religious, or commercial life of 1st century BCE Rome. I did learn some things about Roman politics and about everyday life in the military of the time, especially tactics and weapons. The maneuvering of large units, as described by Caesar and the others, reads much as modern accounts might read. Another surprise for me was how up-to-the-minute it came across, Caesar's considerations in the field the same as any modern commander. Max Hastings, a contemporary military historian, recently wrote, "All wars are different, and yet the same." This great Landmark history makes that clear.
Only the histories of the Gallic War and the Civil War were actually written by Caesar himself. The commentaries of the Alexandrian War, the African War, and the Spanish War were written by subordinates who'd served with him. I was mildly surprised that I thought the prose of the other--unknown, as it turns out--authors to be more fluid and engaging than that of Caesar. And maybe a bit more honest and less self-serving.
More than the story of Caesar's military campaigns, this is masterfully-presented history. Reading the book is like visiting another time and place. It's that detailed, though admittedly this is essentially military history and doesn't offer much insight into the social, religious, or commercial life of 1st century BCE Rome. I did learn some things about Roman politics and about everyday life in the military of the time, especially tactics and weapons. The maneuvering of large units, as described by Caesar and the others, reads much as modern accounts might read. Another surprise for me was how up-to-the-minute it came across, Caesar's considerations in the field the same as any modern commander. Max Hastings, a contemporary military historian, recently wrote, "All wars are different, and yet the same." This great Landmark history makes that clear.
October 14, 2019
This book was kind of overwhelming, in a way that I didn't like. The book contains the 'Caesarean corpus', the yearly records of Caesar's campaigns for about 14 years. Most of the chapters are by Caesar but several are by other authors (known and unknown). The first 8 books are on the Gallic Wars, and the next 6 are the Civil War books. I think that these two parts should have been split into two books because they are almost completely unrelated to each other. Also, this was the first Landmark book I didn't like. The editor just went crazy with the footnotes and appendices. The footnotes especially bothered me, as at every exciting portion of the narrative the editor would interrupt the flow with a footnote alerting the reader that this portion of the narrative is exciting. It was just overkill and made the reading experience onerous.
As for the actual text, it was very interesting. Caesar is clearly one of history's most driven and competent leaders. Since I've read a lot of stuff about Alexander the Great lately, I can't resist comparing the two of them. I find Caesar's achievements to be much more impressive than Alexander's. In my uneducated opinion, Alexander was successful because his army was far more advanced and better trained than other armies of the day. I don't think that Alexander himself was the decisive factor in his victories; there were a number of Macedonian generals who could have accomplished the same as him I think. Moreover, Alexander had a lot of character flaws, such as an unhealthy lust for battle that resulted in him getting wounded a lot; murdering his friends in fits of rage; and throwing tantrums when his army disagreed with him. Furthermore, Alexander was an absolute monarch who didn't have to deal with political games besides executing wannabe assassins.
Caesar faced much, much more difficult challenges in my opinion and was just all-around a better leader. First of all, Caesar was far from an absolute ruler. He started out as a small fish in a big pond and worked his way up by taking big risks (aka taking on huge loans to bribe people to vote for him). He had to make alliances (such as with Crassus and Pompey); he had to win over the common people; etc etc. He had to play a whole political game that Alexander never had to deal with, and he was pretty good at it (although in the end he got stabbed, so he wasn't the best at it). Caesar was also extremely disciplined and competent. I'm not aware of him ever losing control over himself due to, say, anger. Like Alexander, he was extremely conscientious about keeping his army well-supplied. Less like Alexander, he was also extremely conscientious about keeping his soldiers safe; this means that he was always extremely careful about when to engage in battle (he didn't force them on pointless marches through infamous deserts). That doesn't mean that he was overly cautious. When he thought it was best to do long marches to the enemy and storm their camp, he would do that. When he thought it was better to built massive fortifications many miles long, he would do that. When he thought that the fortifications weren't working, even after weeks or months of effort, he was willing to abandon them and move to somewhere where he thought he would have a better chance of luring the enemy into a good situation for himself. Moreover, Caesar faced far more challenging opponents than Alexander, especially in the Civil War. In the Civil War, his army was equipped and trained the same as Pompey's army; Pompey was also an extremely talented general (although Caesar had his veteran Gallic legions). The number of arenas in which Caesar fought is mind-boggling; not only did he conquer Gaul, but he fought throughout Spain; marched through Italy; fought Pompey in Greece (technically Epirus and Thessaly); defeated the Egyptians in Alexandria; defeated Pharnaces near Pontus (this was the 'Veni, vidi, vici' battle); and defeated Juba and the leftover Pompeians in Africa (Tunisia). He fought with great success in virtually every theater of the Mediterranean world, in a huge variety of terrains against a huge variety of enemies.
Caesar was successful for a number of reasons. First of all and most importantly, I think, he was extremely disciplined, knowledgeable, and conscientious. He put in the work that a general is supposed to do - he trained his men well; he interviewed tons of people (defectors, captives, natives) in order to learn about the terrain and his enemy's actions; he took great care to secure supplies and protect his supply lines; he never let his guard or discipline down (so although he was occasionally ambushed, he was never devastated by an ambush); he never let his emotions get the better of him; and yet he had an excellent understanding of his soldiers' psychology and would take that into account when making decisions; etc etc. Furthermore, he was good at the battle stuff and wasn't afraid to wait or to put in hard work. He was ok with making massive siege works (for example at Alesia) just to abandon them when the siege wasn't working (for example at Dyrrachium). He understood the strengths and weaknesses of his great variety of units well enough to innovate (for example by copying the Spanish and Gauls by interspersing light-armed infantry with his cavalry) and to position them properly on the battle field. He obviously had a great intuition for how terrain affects battles, but more importantly, he deeply understood his soldiers' psychological and physical needs (as I mentioned before) and used his understanding to his advantage. After long marches, he would be sure to let his soldiers rest before battle. He rarely was antagonized by his opponents into making rash moves such as battling before his soldiers had had breakfast (this seems trivial but has been an important factor in many battles). If he saw that he could not hold back his soldiers' enthusiasm, he would sometimes allow them to engage in battle even if he thought the conditions weren't ideal. When he saw that his soldiers were wavering, he would sometimes come to the frontlines himself and engage in battle to rally them (such as at Alesia and at the battle of Munda in Spain). He was also extremely diligent in rewarding bravery - this comes across as he mentions many legionnaires by name and describes their deeds in his writing.
All of the things I've mentioned would probably be in any general's handbook and would seem obvious; however, from the countless other generals we encounter in this book (both enemy generals and Caesar's own subordinate generals), it is clear that Caesar was virtually the only general of his day who was competent and disciplined enough to pull this all off.
As for the actual text, it was very interesting. Caesar is clearly one of history's most driven and competent leaders. Since I've read a lot of stuff about Alexander the Great lately, I can't resist comparing the two of them. I find Caesar's achievements to be much more impressive than Alexander's. In my uneducated opinion, Alexander was successful because his army was far more advanced and better trained than other armies of the day. I don't think that Alexander himself was the decisive factor in his victories; there were a number of Macedonian generals who could have accomplished the same as him I think. Moreover, Alexander had a lot of character flaws, such as an unhealthy lust for battle that resulted in him getting wounded a lot; murdering his friends in fits of rage; and throwing tantrums when his army disagreed with him. Furthermore, Alexander was an absolute monarch who didn't have to deal with political games besides executing wannabe assassins.
Caesar faced much, much more difficult challenges in my opinion and was just all-around a better leader. First of all, Caesar was far from an absolute ruler. He started out as a small fish in a big pond and worked his way up by taking big risks (aka taking on huge loans to bribe people to vote for him). He had to make alliances (such as with Crassus and Pompey); he had to win over the common people; etc etc. He had to play a whole political game that Alexander never had to deal with, and he was pretty good at it (although in the end he got stabbed, so he wasn't the best at it). Caesar was also extremely disciplined and competent. I'm not aware of him ever losing control over himself due to, say, anger. Like Alexander, he was extremely conscientious about keeping his army well-supplied. Less like Alexander, he was also extremely conscientious about keeping his soldiers safe; this means that he was always extremely careful about when to engage in battle (he didn't force them on pointless marches through infamous deserts). That doesn't mean that he was overly cautious. When he thought it was best to do long marches to the enemy and storm their camp, he would do that. When he thought it was better to built massive fortifications many miles long, he would do that. When he thought that the fortifications weren't working, even after weeks or months of effort, he was willing to abandon them and move to somewhere where he thought he would have a better chance of luring the enemy into a good situation for himself. Moreover, Caesar faced far more challenging opponents than Alexander, especially in the Civil War. In the Civil War, his army was equipped and trained the same as Pompey's army; Pompey was also an extremely talented general (although Caesar had his veteran Gallic legions). The number of arenas in which Caesar fought is mind-boggling; not only did he conquer Gaul, but he fought throughout Spain; marched through Italy; fought Pompey in Greece (technically Epirus and Thessaly); defeated the Egyptians in Alexandria; defeated Pharnaces near Pontus (this was the 'Veni, vidi, vici' battle); and defeated Juba and the leftover Pompeians in Africa (Tunisia). He fought with great success in virtually every theater of the Mediterranean world, in a huge variety of terrains against a huge variety of enemies.
Caesar was successful for a number of reasons. First of all and most importantly, I think, he was extremely disciplined, knowledgeable, and conscientious. He put in the work that a general is supposed to do - he trained his men well; he interviewed tons of people (defectors, captives, natives) in order to learn about the terrain and his enemy's actions; he took great care to secure supplies and protect his supply lines; he never let his guard or discipline down (so although he was occasionally ambushed, he was never devastated by an ambush); he never let his emotions get the better of him; and yet he had an excellent understanding of his soldiers' psychology and would take that into account when making decisions; etc etc. Furthermore, he was good at the battle stuff and wasn't afraid to wait or to put in hard work. He was ok with making massive siege works (for example at Alesia) just to abandon them when the siege wasn't working (for example at Dyrrachium). He understood the strengths and weaknesses of his great variety of units well enough to innovate (for example by copying the Spanish and Gauls by interspersing light-armed infantry with his cavalry) and to position them properly on the battle field. He obviously had a great intuition for how terrain affects battles, but more importantly, he deeply understood his soldiers' psychological and physical needs (as I mentioned before) and used his understanding to his advantage. After long marches, he would be sure to let his soldiers rest before battle. He rarely was antagonized by his opponents into making rash moves such as battling before his soldiers had had breakfast (this seems trivial but has been an important factor in many battles). If he saw that he could not hold back his soldiers' enthusiasm, he would sometimes allow them to engage in battle even if he thought the conditions weren't ideal. When he saw that his soldiers were wavering, he would sometimes come to the frontlines himself and engage in battle to rally them (such as at Alesia and at the battle of Munda in Spain). He was also extremely diligent in rewarding bravery - this comes across as he mentions many legionnaires by name and describes their deeds in his writing.
All of the things I've mentioned would probably be in any general's handbook and would seem obvious; however, from the countless other generals we encounter in this book (both enemy generals and Caesar's own subordinate generals), it is clear that Caesar was virtually the only general of his day who was competent and disciplined enough to pull this all off.
October 15, 2025
Caesar was an arrogant psychopathic dickhead and his accounts were super repetitive and tedious.
March 29, 2018
this is the book for any one interested in Caesar and his campaigns. Notes are comprehensive plus on line notes I haven't even touched yet. Years of reading. This is the authoritative Caesar
May 13, 2024
OK, so I'm marking this read even though I only actually read the Gallic wars and the Civil war. The remaining portions of the book were not written by Caesar, mostly, so I'm giving myself a pass.
The Landmark series is pretty great: lots of maps and sidenotes to help the modern reader understand what's going on. My one and only complaint about the series is that the books are large and heavy. But they have great typography, excellent translations, and genuinely helpful notes, images, and maps.
The Landmark series is pretty great: lots of maps and sidenotes to help the modern reader understand what's going on. My one and only complaint about the series is that the books are large and heavy. But they have great typography, excellent translations, and genuinely helpful notes, images, and maps.
October 15, 2025
RIP Julius Caesar, you would have loved posting on LinkedIn
This was fascinating but I am rating it a bit low for two reasons: it's very repetitive and not always a fun read, and Caesar is absolutely insufferable. Totally get why they stabbed him. However, it's worth a read just for the flavor of the Romans and how their armies operated, and the small mentions of lost cultures.
This was fascinating but I am rating it a bit low for two reasons: it's very repetitive and not always a fun read, and Caesar is absolutely insufferable. Totally get why they stabbed him. However, it's worth a read just for the flavor of the Romans and how their armies operated, and the small mentions of lost cultures.
July 26, 2019
Wonderful book
This book shows the details of the battles that Gaius Julius Caesar undertook during his lifetime. It was very interesting to read how Caesar places his armies and moved from place to place in order to take the wars to his enemies.
This book shows the details of the battles that Gaius Julius Caesar undertook during his lifetime. It was very interesting to read how Caesar places his armies and moved from place to place in order to take the wars to his enemies.
September 16, 2023
A very good summary of Caesar's campaigns and life. I could only read the introduction and up to page 46. It just wasn't what I was looking for. If I ever need to dive deeper into the specifics of his life then I can take this book out again.
June 12, 2019
The format for these war narratives is excellent. The book has maps, battlefield diagrams, photos and sketches to accompany the text. The text has useful annotations as well. Caesar's writing is concise. He unpacks the key events of the dozens of key battles from Gaul and the Civil War. The book also includes non-Caesarean chapters covering the Alexandria, African and Spanish Wars.
It is fascinating to be inside the head of the great general and statesman. He presents himself in a positive light, but does it subtly. He speaks almost exclusively of himself in the third person. Caesar thought this, Caesar rallied his troops, Caesar gave this speech, Caesar showed his mercy. What makes his narrative compelling is the credibility of his figures and reconstruction of the momentous events. This style is in sharp contrast to Napoleon who used widely exaggerated figures to accentuate his accomplishments. Caesar does not shy away from his defeats and errors. He wisely attaches much of the blame to his subordinates in there rare missteps, but not in a way that is overly defensive or critical. When he is victorious due to his superior planning, bravery, training, or technical knowledge, he takes credit but does not gloat. He understands the importance of training, choice of battleground, troop morale, line formations and engineering projects. He highlights which areas were most important during different battles. He is quick to share glory with his troops. He frequently singles out specific soldiers who displayed extraordinary valor and makes sure to commend them by their full names. Caesar discusses the merits and weaknesses of his enemies. When he is extended or defeated, he gives his opponent their due.
Some of the most exciting battles are the sieges. Caesar understood wars of attrition. He could calculate when his troops had access to the necessary supplies, water, food, and fodder to starve out a besieged enemy. He was great at engineering and could build bridges, trenches, fortifications and siege towers faster than his opponents. Speed and troop morale were other trademark strengths. He could steal a march, surprise enemies with lightening movements, and capture strategic positions before his enemy could counter. Though he is famous for his speed, he was not careless. If his enemy tried to draw him into an unfavorable battleground, he would decline. He would use strategy and deception to draw his opponent to a more even battlefield.
In the battle of Alesia, Caesar encircles and sieges his enemy who is confined within the city walls of Alesia. The Gaul leader Vercingetorix sends out his cavalry to rally other bands of Gaul for reinforcements. Caesar hears of the coming reinforcements and builds massive trenches in order to protect his troops from these troops while continuing to siege Vercingetorix. Despite being massively outnumbered, his preparation, battle planning and experienced soldiers defeat the oncoming Gaul challengers. Vercingetorix sees the Gaul forces routed and surrenders.
At times, Caesar comments on the politics of Rome and the righteousness of his cause over Pompey's. He attributes the constant uprisings in Gaul to their love of freedom despite the better leadership and fair treatment by the Romans and Caesar. At times he shows his pride and ego, but that is rare. He is fair and diplomatic. One clear difference is Caesar's consideration for the Gaul tribes relative to Romans. In the Civil War, Caesar is generous and merciful to his fellow Romans. He often pardons Pompey's men. In Gaul, he is far more severe and brutal to his enemies. After one engagement, he cut off the arms of all the captured combatants. It is interesting to wonder if Caesar had been more merciful and kind to the Gaul enemies whether there would have been less unrest.
Although the excerpts from his pre-battle speeches are short and few, the fact that he includes them is unusual. Few war histories of this period include the words of the general as he rallies his troops. Caesar was highly tuned to the esprit de corps. He knew when his troops needed rest, replenishment or a motivational speech. After a defeat, he would allow his troops time to regroup. He was a source of steadiness and calm in the heat of battle and on the heals of defeat. His troops would take their cues from their unflappable leader and steel themselves for the next battle.
The book has an excellent appendix with a who's who section of the key figures in the text, a glossary, and a short explanation of the composition of the Roman military.
Caesar is not without his flaws. In this book, where the focus is on his military campaigns, his brilliance is well documented and his accomplishments are well deserved.
It is fascinating to be inside the head of the great general and statesman. He presents himself in a positive light, but does it subtly. He speaks almost exclusively of himself in the third person. Caesar thought this, Caesar rallied his troops, Caesar gave this speech, Caesar showed his mercy. What makes his narrative compelling is the credibility of his figures and reconstruction of the momentous events. This style is in sharp contrast to Napoleon who used widely exaggerated figures to accentuate his accomplishments. Caesar does not shy away from his defeats and errors. He wisely attaches much of the blame to his subordinates in there rare missteps, but not in a way that is overly defensive or critical. When he is victorious due to his superior planning, bravery, training, or technical knowledge, he takes credit but does not gloat. He understands the importance of training, choice of battleground, troop morale, line formations and engineering projects. He highlights which areas were most important during different battles. He is quick to share glory with his troops. He frequently singles out specific soldiers who displayed extraordinary valor and makes sure to commend them by their full names. Caesar discusses the merits and weaknesses of his enemies. When he is extended or defeated, he gives his opponent their due.
Some of the most exciting battles are the sieges. Caesar understood wars of attrition. He could calculate when his troops had access to the necessary supplies, water, food, and fodder to starve out a besieged enemy. He was great at engineering and could build bridges, trenches, fortifications and siege towers faster than his opponents. Speed and troop morale were other trademark strengths. He could steal a march, surprise enemies with lightening movements, and capture strategic positions before his enemy could counter. Though he is famous for his speed, he was not careless. If his enemy tried to draw him into an unfavorable battleground, he would decline. He would use strategy and deception to draw his opponent to a more even battlefield.
In the battle of Alesia, Caesar encircles and sieges his enemy who is confined within the city walls of Alesia. The Gaul leader Vercingetorix sends out his cavalry to rally other bands of Gaul for reinforcements. Caesar hears of the coming reinforcements and builds massive trenches in order to protect his troops from these troops while continuing to siege Vercingetorix. Despite being massively outnumbered, his preparation, battle planning and experienced soldiers defeat the oncoming Gaul challengers. Vercingetorix sees the Gaul forces routed and surrenders.
At times, Caesar comments on the politics of Rome and the righteousness of his cause over Pompey's. He attributes the constant uprisings in Gaul to their love of freedom despite the better leadership and fair treatment by the Romans and Caesar. At times he shows his pride and ego, but that is rare. He is fair and diplomatic. One clear difference is Caesar's consideration for the Gaul tribes relative to Romans. In the Civil War, Caesar is generous and merciful to his fellow Romans. He often pardons Pompey's men. In Gaul, he is far more severe and brutal to his enemies. After one engagement, he cut off the arms of all the captured combatants. It is interesting to wonder if Caesar had been more merciful and kind to the Gaul enemies whether there would have been less unrest.
Although the excerpts from his pre-battle speeches are short and few, the fact that he includes them is unusual. Few war histories of this period include the words of the general as he rallies his troops. Caesar was highly tuned to the esprit de corps. He knew when his troops needed rest, replenishment or a motivational speech. After a defeat, he would allow his troops time to regroup. He was a source of steadiness and calm in the heat of battle and on the heals of defeat. His troops would take their cues from their unflappable leader and steel themselves for the next battle.
The book has an excellent appendix with a who's who section of the key figures in the text, a glossary, and a short explanation of the composition of the Roman military.
Caesar is not without his flaws. In this book, where the focus is on his military campaigns, his brilliance is well documented and his accomplishments are well deserved.
September 2, 2021
"All Gaul is divided into thee parts."
With these famous words Julius Caesar begins the first of his Commentaries on the Gallic War.*
In these Commentaries, he gives a chronological account of his activities in Gaul from the time of his succession to the governorship of Gallia Narbonensis in 59 b.c.e. to the end of the Gallic revolt led by Vercingetorix late in the same decade. During those years, Caesar and his Roman legions confronted first one group of tribes, then another. Only two sections, the first section of book 1 and the second section of book 6, are not about actual battle operations or preparations. The former is a description of Gaul and its inhabitants; the latter is an account of customs of the Gauls and Germans.
In his comments about the Gauls, Caesar stirs the imagination and stimulates curiosity by giving only enough information to make the reader wish more had been written. The account of the Gallic Wars is a reminder that war has been a continual factor in human affairs. As one example of the fury and effectiveness of war in ancient times, Caesar comments at the end of his account of the battle with the Nervii: This battle being ended, and the name and nation of the Nervii almost reduced to annihilation, their old men, together with the boys and women whom we have stated had been collected together in the inlets and the marshes, when this battle had been reported to them, convinced that nothing was an obstacle to the conquerors, and nothing safe to the conquered, sent ambassadors to Caesar with the consent of all who survived, and surrendered themselves to him; and in recounting the calamity of their state, they said that their senators were reduced from six hundred to three; that of sixty thousand men who could bear arms, scarcely five hundred remained.
Other examples of the character of these ancient wars included the massacre at Avaricum, at which, according to Caesar, scarcely eight hundred people of all ages and both genders escaped the city when it was taken, out of a population of forty thousand; the rest were killed; while indiscriminate killing was the norm at Sarsura and the Euberones, among others.
Caesar the Roman administrator is apparent throughout the Commentaries. He writes in an impersonal fashion, however, much as though he were preparing a favorable report to the Roman senate. Only rarely does an individual come through to the reader as a real personality. Even Caesar himself, whose name figures more largely than any other, remains an official and a general rather than emerging as a clearly visualized person. The Gallic and Germanic chieftains who oppose him are little more than names, and the same is true of the lieutenants who serve under him. The only outstanding exception to this general statement is the passage concerning Sextius Baculus, who, sick though he was, arose from his bed and saved the day for the Romans by rallying their forces when they were attacked in a camp at Aduatuca; he fought bravely until he was carried back to rest.
Of particular interest to English-speaking readers are those portions of the Commentaries that deal with Britain and Caesar’s invasions of Britain. Caesar’s account of the early history of that part of the world is the earliest of the Roman documents. Caesar tells of his first expedition, an abortive one, made in 55 b.c.e., and his second and more successful attempt the following year, an invasion that paved the way for the Roman occupation that lasted until the fifth century c.e. For his second invasion, he ordered a fleet of more than eight hundred vessels built and assembled, a logistical success noteworthy in any era of history. This fleet carried two thousand cavalrymen with their mounts and five Roman legions, each consisting at that time of about five thousand men.
Caesar was a remarkable man, one of the greatest in human history, in the sense that greatness may be defined as leaving an indelible mark on the history of his time. Few such men have lived; fewer still have left written records for posterity; and none has left a document to compare with Caesar’s Commentaries. The book occupies a unique place in the written records of the Western world. In addition to its value as history, it deserves to be read as an example of a concise report presented with an idiosyncratic style and flavor. The military greatness of Julius Caesar is the most striking aspect of the eight books of his Commentaries on the Gallic Wars. Whether you believe all of what is reported or not, this was an achievement of massive proportions.
*The Landmark edition of his commentaries is magnificent providing a new translation complemented by extensive footnotes, helpful maps, drawings, and illustrations. There are also useful appendices and even links to a series of scholarly essays on the Landmark web site.
With these famous words Julius Caesar begins the first of his Commentaries on the Gallic War.*
In these Commentaries, he gives a chronological account of his activities in Gaul from the time of his succession to the governorship of Gallia Narbonensis in 59 b.c.e. to the end of the Gallic revolt led by Vercingetorix late in the same decade. During those years, Caesar and his Roman legions confronted first one group of tribes, then another. Only two sections, the first section of book 1 and the second section of book 6, are not about actual battle operations or preparations. The former is a description of Gaul and its inhabitants; the latter is an account of customs of the Gauls and Germans.
In his comments about the Gauls, Caesar stirs the imagination and stimulates curiosity by giving only enough information to make the reader wish more had been written. The account of the Gallic Wars is a reminder that war has been a continual factor in human affairs. As one example of the fury and effectiveness of war in ancient times, Caesar comments at the end of his account of the battle with the Nervii: This battle being ended, and the name and nation of the Nervii almost reduced to annihilation, their old men, together with the boys and women whom we have stated had been collected together in the inlets and the marshes, when this battle had been reported to them, convinced that nothing was an obstacle to the conquerors, and nothing safe to the conquered, sent ambassadors to Caesar with the consent of all who survived, and surrendered themselves to him; and in recounting the calamity of their state, they said that their senators were reduced from six hundred to three; that of sixty thousand men who could bear arms, scarcely five hundred remained.
Other examples of the character of these ancient wars included the massacre at Avaricum, at which, according to Caesar, scarcely eight hundred people of all ages and both genders escaped the city when it was taken, out of a population of forty thousand; the rest were killed; while indiscriminate killing was the norm at Sarsura and the Euberones, among others.
Caesar the Roman administrator is apparent throughout the Commentaries. He writes in an impersonal fashion, however, much as though he were preparing a favorable report to the Roman senate. Only rarely does an individual come through to the reader as a real personality. Even Caesar himself, whose name figures more largely than any other, remains an official and a general rather than emerging as a clearly visualized person. The Gallic and Germanic chieftains who oppose him are little more than names, and the same is true of the lieutenants who serve under him. The only outstanding exception to this general statement is the passage concerning Sextius Baculus, who, sick though he was, arose from his bed and saved the day for the Romans by rallying their forces when they were attacked in a camp at Aduatuca; he fought bravely until he was carried back to rest.
Of particular interest to English-speaking readers are those portions of the Commentaries that deal with Britain and Caesar’s invasions of Britain. Caesar’s account of the early history of that part of the world is the earliest of the Roman documents. Caesar tells of his first expedition, an abortive one, made in 55 b.c.e., and his second and more successful attempt the following year, an invasion that paved the way for the Roman occupation that lasted until the fifth century c.e. For his second invasion, he ordered a fleet of more than eight hundred vessels built and assembled, a logistical success noteworthy in any era of history. This fleet carried two thousand cavalrymen with their mounts and five Roman legions, each consisting at that time of about five thousand men.
Caesar was a remarkable man, one of the greatest in human history, in the sense that greatness may be defined as leaving an indelible mark on the history of his time. Few such men have lived; fewer still have left written records for posterity; and none has left a document to compare with Caesar’s Commentaries. The book occupies a unique place in the written records of the Western world. In addition to its value as history, it deserves to be read as an example of a concise report presented with an idiosyncratic style and flavor. The military greatness of Julius Caesar is the most striking aspect of the eight books of his Commentaries on the Gallic Wars. Whether you believe all of what is reported or not, this was an achievement of massive proportions.
*The Landmark edition of his commentaries is magnificent providing a new translation complemented by extensive footnotes, helpful maps, drawings, and illustrations. There are also useful appendices and even links to a series of scholarly essays on the Landmark web site.
April 25, 2024
This was the most beautiful/difficult book I’ve ever read.
October 19, 2022
I was curious to read something written by one of the most impactful persons in history, from 2000 years ago. Caesar's name has become synonymous with "ruler" in several languages.
The complete works are either written by Caesar or a few by colleagues. In his own sections he refers to himself in third person (as of course the other sections do as well). These read basically as performance review input: what happened, who were the players, some other comments. There is a little discussion of the societies he encountered, especially the more unfamiliar as in the invasion of Great Britain. I was curious about how much these were traveler's exaggerations or misinterpretations. For example, did the Britains really practice group marriage, essentially what we would call polyamory? I'm curious. There is otherwise very little about society, culture, government, ....
These books don't give a sense of Caesar's thoughts but of his actions. In the Civil War book there is a bit more discussion of the rational of the civil war, although its hard to judge how much these are self serving arguments. I don't think we're reading Caesar's real motivations. He does frequently mention offenses to his dignity as motivation, however, which may indeed be apt, although this was apparently an important concept to Romans.
Caesar did have remarkable military success, and these books basically focus on the military. And the costs were remarkable as well: millions killed in Gaul, I don't know how many in the civil wars. Caesar does not win every battle, although he does downplay and explain his losses, but he never loses a war. He is able to ultimately circumvent any setbacks.
Caesar had advantages that the Roman military system gave in his conflicts with the Gauls, but this didn't apply to the civil wars where he was fighting other Romans. So its not just a superior system, but superior execution as well.
I think there were four ingredients to his success: combat ability, logistics, engineering, and leadership. Clearly the Romans weren't always the superior fighters, it was the combination that was overwhelming.
Caesar is clear about how much effort he devotes to logistics and insuring adequate supplies, especially food. The campaign that seemed closest to defeating him, the rebellion by Vercingetorix in Gaul, employed a scorched earth policy as a major element, where the Gauls destroyed their own towns and fields to deny resources to the Romans.
Caesar always chooses a beneficial battlefield, and doesn't allow himself to be goaded into thoughtless action. He isn't impulsive.
But he is decisive. He quickly evaluates situations and takes immediate (and sometimes dramatic) action. When he sees a potential threat developing, he is willing to immediately, personally lead a force in response to try to deal with the situation before it gets out of hand. There isn't any discussion of his considerations, so its not clear how much of this is reasoned and how much of this is intuitive.
Caesar also provides good leadership. He shows concern for the welfare of his soldiers, not wasting lives in unnecessary actions. He gets personally involved when the situation is going badly to lead by example and fortify his troops, even at personal risk. He takes action to manage the mood of his soldiers, counteracting setbacks. He recognizes noteworthy contributions. He motivates performance with monetary rewards including bonuses for difficult assignments. He is both a manager and a leader.
Caesar is also strategic in analyzing a situation and countering his opponents strengths. The strength of the Gauls is their calvary. Caesar augments his calvary by recruiting Germanic warriors, but they don't have horses. He sends agents to Italy and Spain to acquire horses, but also makes his Equestrians (minor Roman nobles) surrender their horses, the symbol of their nobility, for use by the Germans. His improved calvary defeats the Gallic calvary three times in a row even though outnumbered. He has successfully countered his enemies strength.
I was surprised at the importance of combat engineering. The Romans are constantly building fortifications and siege structures, often very rapidly. There is a case where the Roman legions build a 15 mile long, 10 foot high tall wall in 3 days as preparation for an attack. This is all by hand! Of course its something like 25,000 men, but its still impressive. They build a bridge across the river to Germany in a few days when they decide to cross. Nobody expects it. They build ships when they need them for naval operations and transportation.
There are quite a few dramatic events. The rebellion by Vercingetorix results in Caesar laying siege to a city containing Gallic forces, and he is then surrounded himself by additional, larger Gallic forces. He builds two sets of walls, one facing the city and the other facing outward to defend against the external forces attacking him. So he is defending two walls and is dramatically outnumbered. He should have lost. He is saved by the quality of the fortifications his legions construct, his ability to create a cavalry as good as the Gallic calvary, and poor generalship by the Gallic commanders. They should have concentrated there forces; they never did effectively. He wins and the Gallic forces are almost destroyed.
Its also astonishing the sheer number of campaigns he conducts. He spends 9 years in Gaul first conquering and then putting down subsequent revolts. He then returns to Rome for the Civil War with Pompey. He pursues Pompey to Greece and defeats him. He pursues the fleeing Pompey to Egypt, where the Egyptians kill Pompey, but he gets attacked by the Egyptians as part of a civil war there and is forced to defend himself while under siege in Alexandria. (He also meets Cleopatra, but his relationship with her isn't mentioned.) He defeats the Egyptians, and returns to Rome. Soon after he goes to Africa in pursuit of remaining Pompeian forces, and defeats them. He returns to Rome for a bit, then goes to Spain to defeat another son of Pompey. Finally done. And as the editors note, he would have started a war with Parthia if he wasn't assassinated.
This can be slow reading due to the numerous references to places and people that you've never heard of. And it doesn't given any real insight into Caesar as a person or his thought processes, but it is a fascinating external view of one of the most important actors in history, and how he was able to be so successful. And there are quite a few exciting events and shocking details. (For example, after defeating the Pompeian forces in Spain outside of a town, his troops build a wall with the bodies of the killed to lay siege to the town!)
Of course should military success be something admired? But that's another topic.
The complete works are either written by Caesar or a few by colleagues. In his own sections he refers to himself in third person (as of course the other sections do as well). These read basically as performance review input: what happened, who were the players, some other comments. There is a little discussion of the societies he encountered, especially the more unfamiliar as in the invasion of Great Britain. I was curious about how much these were traveler's exaggerations or misinterpretations. For example, did the Britains really practice group marriage, essentially what we would call polyamory? I'm curious. There is otherwise very little about society, culture, government, ....
These books don't give a sense of Caesar's thoughts but of his actions. In the Civil War book there is a bit more discussion of the rational of the civil war, although its hard to judge how much these are self serving arguments. I don't think we're reading Caesar's real motivations. He does frequently mention offenses to his dignity as motivation, however, which may indeed be apt, although this was apparently an important concept to Romans.
Caesar did have remarkable military success, and these books basically focus on the military. And the costs were remarkable as well: millions killed in Gaul, I don't know how many in the civil wars. Caesar does not win every battle, although he does downplay and explain his losses, but he never loses a war. He is able to ultimately circumvent any setbacks.
Caesar had advantages that the Roman military system gave in his conflicts with the Gauls, but this didn't apply to the civil wars where he was fighting other Romans. So its not just a superior system, but superior execution as well.
I think there were four ingredients to his success: combat ability, logistics, engineering, and leadership. Clearly the Romans weren't always the superior fighters, it was the combination that was overwhelming.
Caesar is clear about how much effort he devotes to logistics and insuring adequate supplies, especially food. The campaign that seemed closest to defeating him, the rebellion by Vercingetorix in Gaul, employed a scorched earth policy as a major element, where the Gauls destroyed their own towns and fields to deny resources to the Romans.
Caesar always chooses a beneficial battlefield, and doesn't allow himself to be goaded into thoughtless action. He isn't impulsive.
But he is decisive. He quickly evaluates situations and takes immediate (and sometimes dramatic) action. When he sees a potential threat developing, he is willing to immediately, personally lead a force in response to try to deal with the situation before it gets out of hand. There isn't any discussion of his considerations, so its not clear how much of this is reasoned and how much of this is intuitive.
Caesar also provides good leadership. He shows concern for the welfare of his soldiers, not wasting lives in unnecessary actions. He gets personally involved when the situation is going badly to lead by example and fortify his troops, even at personal risk. He takes action to manage the mood of his soldiers, counteracting setbacks. He recognizes noteworthy contributions. He motivates performance with monetary rewards including bonuses for difficult assignments. He is both a manager and a leader.
Caesar is also strategic in analyzing a situation and countering his opponents strengths. The strength of the Gauls is their calvary. Caesar augments his calvary by recruiting Germanic warriors, but they don't have horses. He sends agents to Italy and Spain to acquire horses, but also makes his Equestrians (minor Roman nobles) surrender their horses, the symbol of their nobility, for use by the Germans. His improved calvary defeats the Gallic calvary three times in a row even though outnumbered. He has successfully countered his enemies strength.
I was surprised at the importance of combat engineering. The Romans are constantly building fortifications and siege structures, often very rapidly. There is a case where the Roman legions build a 15 mile long, 10 foot high tall wall in 3 days as preparation for an attack. This is all by hand! Of course its something like 25,000 men, but its still impressive. They build a bridge across the river to Germany in a few days when they decide to cross. Nobody expects it. They build ships when they need them for naval operations and transportation.
There are quite a few dramatic events. The rebellion by Vercingetorix results in Caesar laying siege to a city containing Gallic forces, and he is then surrounded himself by additional, larger Gallic forces. He builds two sets of walls, one facing the city and the other facing outward to defend against the external forces attacking him. So he is defending two walls and is dramatically outnumbered. He should have lost. He is saved by the quality of the fortifications his legions construct, his ability to create a cavalry as good as the Gallic calvary, and poor generalship by the Gallic commanders. They should have concentrated there forces; they never did effectively. He wins and the Gallic forces are almost destroyed.
Its also astonishing the sheer number of campaigns he conducts. He spends 9 years in Gaul first conquering and then putting down subsequent revolts. He then returns to Rome for the Civil War with Pompey. He pursues Pompey to Greece and defeats him. He pursues the fleeing Pompey to Egypt, where the Egyptians kill Pompey, but he gets attacked by the Egyptians as part of a civil war there and is forced to defend himself while under siege in Alexandria. (He also meets Cleopatra, but his relationship with her isn't mentioned.) He defeats the Egyptians, and returns to Rome. Soon after he goes to Africa in pursuit of remaining Pompeian forces, and defeats them. He returns to Rome for a bit, then goes to Spain to defeat another son of Pompey. Finally done. And as the editors note, he would have started a war with Parthia if he wasn't assassinated.
This can be slow reading due to the numerous references to places and people that you've never heard of. And it doesn't given any real insight into Caesar as a person or his thought processes, but it is a fascinating external view of one of the most important actors in history, and how he was able to be so successful. And there are quite a few exciting events and shocking details. (For example, after defeating the Pompeian forces in Spain outside of a town, his troops build a wall with the bodies of the killed to lay siege to the town!)
Of course should military success be something admired? But that's another topic.
July 27, 2018
First of all, let me say that my review here has NOTHING to do with the excellent Landmark series of books, which are stupendous, and the only way to go with these works; and 2., this ranking obviously has NOTHING to do with this work's status as an undeniable world classic. I'm purely rating this on how interesting it was to me, and sadly -- after wanting to read it ever since taking Latin in high school -- I must say it was a disappointment. I adored the Landmark Thucydides (it's one of the best books I've ever read), but this book was only incidentally interesting to me, being mostly preoccupied with troop positions and movements, and Caesar's rationale for why he did everything. Here and there were interesting little tidbits (the description of Britain as they invaded it; the manners and customs of the Germani; and little glimpses of Alexandria), but on the whole it was not nearly as absorbing as I'd hoped, and I wound up skimming a lot. I'm glad I finally satisfied my curiosity about it, but I can't honestly say I really liked it all that well.
Read
September 19, 2020The book is an impressive collection of works pertaining to Caesars campaigns. The footnotes are impressive and illuminating, and the narrative is often aided by useful maps and pictures.
I cannot give a star rating to this work. Personally, I struggled to finish the book because of the dry report-style writing, and the large amount of footnotes, names and places taxing my attention. It wasn't a book I could easily return to after a break, and at times it was a slog to get through. Military campaigning, as is no surprise, is less about fancy tactics and more about keeping troops fed, morally in high spirits, and solving complex logistical issues. In short, most of the time it is not riveting reading material.
Giving the work a low rating because of that feels cheap to me, however. First of all. The authors didn't write for a modern audience, and second of all, the effort and scholarship required to put all of this together for exactly a modern audience is very impressive.
I cannot give a star rating to this work. Personally, I struggled to finish the book because of the dry report-style writing, and the large amount of footnotes, names and places taxing my attention. It wasn't a book I could easily return to after a break, and at times it was a slog to get through. Military campaigning, as is no surprise, is less about fancy tactics and more about keeping troops fed, morally in high spirits, and solving complex logistical issues. In short, most of the time it is not riveting reading material.
Giving the work a low rating because of that feels cheap to me, however. First of all. The authors didn't write for a modern audience, and second of all, the effort and scholarship required to put all of this together for exactly a modern audience is very impressive.
December 5, 2019
I read through the entire Gallic War, and the opening of the Civil War. A truly enthralling read that's written in a unique tense, by Caesar himself. The events that happen throughout his campaign, and the logistics of some of the battles and sieges, are practically unbelievable and outmatch most high fantasy stories and fictional battles you can think of. This edition is great because of the maps, extensive explanatory footnotes, and linked essays (which, for example, examine the book as a piece of propaganda, or go into detail about the siege engines, etc.). A must have for anyone seriously interested in Roman history or military tactics, and a well-written, edge of the seat and fun read no less.
January 1, 2021
Absolutely no complaints about the Landmark edition here; I will continue to recommend them, as the extensive footnotes and detailed maps provide essential context to the primary source. Stellar work overall.
I greatly enjoyed the underlying work, as well. The works that Caesar himself wrote (Gallic Wars, Civil War) are definitely better than those written by others pretending to be him (Alexandrian, African, Spanish Wars); Caesar's sharp strategic mind and skills as a propagandist definitely shine through, and you really get a sense for why he was able to rise to power as quickly as he did.
I greatly enjoyed the underlying work, as well. The works that Caesar himself wrote (Gallic Wars, Civil War) are definitely better than those written by others pretending to be him (Alexandrian, African, Spanish Wars); Caesar's sharp strategic mind and skills as a propagandist definitely shine through, and you really get a sense for why he was able to rise to power as quickly as he did.
May 17, 2019
If I were reviewing only the quality of the Landmark edition of Julius Caesar, this would be an easy five-stars. I'm a huge fan of the Landmark editions, and I find the translations, maps, footnotes, and so on to be exceptionally well-done and value-added.
The "but" is that I've never much cared for Caesar's works. This edition makes them as good as they can be, including the expanded historical context, but they still aren't my favorites.
The "but" is that I've never much cared for Caesar's works. This edition makes them as good as they can be, including the expanded historical context, but they still aren't my favorites.
March 6, 2016
Technically a collection of several books "attributed to caesar but probably written by..." It makes for interesting historical reading. The authors also hid some wonderful side stories both humorous and horrible. The book was a good clarification of some events romanticized or polished by storytellers.
June 20, 2021
Прочёл первую половину первой книги. Интерес лежал в том что это, скорее всего, старейшее дошедшее до нас упоминания города Женева. Гельветов стало чуток жалко (Цезарь уложил их за полкнижки, а они на секундочку целая третья часть Галлов), но нечего с империей шутки шутить. Написано достаточно занимательно, жаль автору не дали развить стиль на старости лет.
November 14, 2023
A thrilling account of Caesar's conquests told with simplicity, style, and grace, and invaluable to understanding both his rise to power and the events that led to the ultimate fall of the Republic. Both a narrative of and manual on conquest, and an unwavering declaration and advocacy of Roman virtue and ideals
June 20, 2015
I am not rating Iulius Caesar, that would be foolish, rather, I am only commenting on the "translation". This, "The Complete Works of Iulius Caesar", in contrast to the three other translations that I've read, provides a more comprehensive English version of the Dictator's writings.
December 1, 2021
Espectacular!
September 30, 2022
You can't beat Caesar... no pun intended.
November 4, 2023
This edition of Caesar's commentaries provides the fourteen books associated with Caesar--the 8 books of the Gallic Wars (covering 58 BCE to 51 BCE), the 3 books of the Civil Wars Against Pompey (49-48), and the 3 books associated with the 'mop-up' of the republican forces (the Alexandrian War of 48-47 BCE, the African War of 47-46 BCE, and the Spanish War of 45 BCE). Like in the Landmark edition of Thucydides' Peloponnesian War, the edition provides not only an great translation with good margin notes but also excellent maps for comprehending the events.
In the Gallic Wars, we see Caesar directly constructing a casus belli for the incorporation of Gaul--beginning first with the Helvetian migration, and then a call to arms by Gallic allies of Rome to overthrow the yoke of the germanic Ariovistus. As broadly the conflict escalates, we see an effort by Caesar to both 1) deal with the supporters of his enemies among the farther out areas of Gaul and 2) respond to new plots against him that lead by 54 BCE to Rome's complete domination of Gaul. Despite the notable losses such as that of Sabinus and Cotta's legion in 54 BCE against the Eburones led by Ambiorix, Rome faces little strong threat to their domination until 52 BCE. That great Gallic revolt led by Vercingetorix ends with the defeat of the Gallic forces at Alesia, a battle where against superior numbers and being surrounded on both sides (which Caesar neutralizes as an issue by the construction of two walls surrounding the fortified town).
The notable propaganda elements of the Gallic Wars are in how each conflict is presented--as a necessary act to preserve the interests and safety of the Roman Republic and to defend its allies against enemies. Additionally, in his invasion of Britain and his two crossings across the Rhine, Caesar presents himself as going where no Roman goes before. He didn't have a fleet at the start of the conflict on the Atlantic, he didn't have experience crossing the channel, and yet he could.. No matter, that these adventures did not end with much in note, except perhaps in presenting Rome as capable of punishing or attacking all-comers.
In the Civil Wars, Caesar presents himself still as a defender of Romanitas, but now the conflict is predictably that of Romans against Romans. He presents himself, especially in Books 9 and 10, as constantly seeking peace. Presenting terms to his enemies, and upon defeating them, offering them safe conduct and pardon. Indeed, this self-presentation is not all propaganda--there is heavy evidence of his leniency--but in contrast to his depiction of his enemies (as brutal plunderers of the provinces, constantly seeking their own rewards, especially in the prelude to the pivotal battle of Pharsalus), Caesar seems forced by necessity into greater and greater powers. The fast action of the conflict--beginning with his March on Italy, the 40 day war in Spain, and then the pivotal action in Illyricum and Greece, ending in Pompey the Great's flight to Alexandria--is a bit breathtaking. In it, the overwhelming odds against him (numerically) are put in contrast with his constant victories, which are not always constant.
The later books all show the adaptability of Caesar, his victories in unexpected ways (such as in Alexandria where his soldiers are cordoned off to a small portion, surrounded without reinforcements for extended periods of time). By the end of the text, we see Caesar victorious but of course, less than a year after the conclusion of the Spanish War, it all comes crashing down. An excellent set of texts for understanding the Caesar's rise to power and how Caesar and his supporters styled him in their propaganda.
In the Gallic Wars, we see Caesar directly constructing a casus belli for the incorporation of Gaul--beginning first with the Helvetian migration, and then a call to arms by Gallic allies of Rome to overthrow the yoke of the germanic Ariovistus. As broadly the conflict escalates, we see an effort by Caesar to both 1) deal with the supporters of his enemies among the farther out areas of Gaul and 2) respond to new plots against him that lead by 54 BCE to Rome's complete domination of Gaul. Despite the notable losses such as that of Sabinus and Cotta's legion in 54 BCE against the Eburones led by Ambiorix, Rome faces little strong threat to their domination until 52 BCE. That great Gallic revolt led by Vercingetorix ends with the defeat of the Gallic forces at Alesia, a battle where against superior numbers and being surrounded on both sides (which Caesar neutralizes as an issue by the construction of two walls surrounding the fortified town).
The notable propaganda elements of the Gallic Wars are in how each conflict is presented--as a necessary act to preserve the interests and safety of the Roman Republic and to defend its allies against enemies. Additionally, in his invasion of Britain and his two crossings across the Rhine, Caesar presents himself as going where no Roman goes before. He didn't have a fleet at the start of the conflict on the Atlantic, he didn't have experience crossing the channel, and yet he could.. No matter, that these adventures did not end with much in note, except perhaps in presenting Rome as capable of punishing or attacking all-comers.
In the Civil Wars, Caesar presents himself still as a defender of Romanitas, but now the conflict is predictably that of Romans against Romans. He presents himself, especially in Books 9 and 10, as constantly seeking peace. Presenting terms to his enemies, and upon defeating them, offering them safe conduct and pardon. Indeed, this self-presentation is not all propaganda--there is heavy evidence of his leniency--but in contrast to his depiction of his enemies (as brutal plunderers of the provinces, constantly seeking their own rewards, especially in the prelude to the pivotal battle of Pharsalus), Caesar seems forced by necessity into greater and greater powers. The fast action of the conflict--beginning with his March on Italy, the 40 day war in Spain, and then the pivotal action in Illyricum and Greece, ending in Pompey the Great's flight to Alexandria--is a bit breathtaking. In it, the overwhelming odds against him (numerically) are put in contrast with his constant victories, which are not always constant.
The later books all show the adaptability of Caesar, his victories in unexpected ways (such as in Alexandria where his soldiers are cordoned off to a small portion, surrounded without reinforcements for extended periods of time). By the end of the text, we see Caesar victorious but of course, less than a year after the conclusion of the Spanish War, it all comes crashing down. An excellent set of texts for understanding the Caesar's rise to power and how Caesar and his supporters styled him in their propaganda.
May 1, 2023
I chose to read 'The Landmark Julius Caesar' because of a reference made to it in another book that I was reading. My curiosity was aroused. In general I have read only select sources of ancient history and militaria. In other words I am a neophyte at dealing with this type of literature. I do not know why I read it and had no real interest in doing so other than to satisfy my curiosity. So I am out of my depth in saying anything about it, either as a student of Roman history or as a reader of Latin. I think that it is a very fine edition of these works on Julius Caesar. I have formally studied both Latin and Greek, but this gives me no foundation for saying anything about how well the editors did in terms of the translation itself and have to rely upon the comments of those with expertise in regard to how well done the text does in this regard; I can accept authority. And I did greatly appreciate the footnotes, commentaries, maps, etc. when it comes to simply broadening my general understanding of the historical context. I am not totally ignorant when it comes to understanding the general history of the time period. So reading this helped to fill that out for me.
But overall this book highlights specifics concerning a time and place and culture and person about which/whom I feel no connection. I have no interest in military conquests, in spite of their obvious impacts on: Caesar's own time, or conquests going on in our own time, or the impacts of Caesar's impacts on our time. So in other words I was in no way impressed by the accomplishments of either the man or those who defended themselves in any of these campaigns other than that of pity for people in all times who are so reduced to fear and violence, including Caesar himself. So I guess that I would summarize my reading as a rather dispassionate, perfunctory reading of the transition from a republic to an empire, in spite of it being a well edited text.
-----
The only personal impression with which I am left of the man himself is that I found it no small irony that someone who strategized and then ordered, as well as who personally gleefully joined in on the slaughter of thousands…and tens of thousands…and hundreds of thousands of his enemies could with such equanimity in the next paragraph so haughtily state how compassionate he was. But such is the mind of Gaius Julius Caesar. This comes through resoundingly in these writings. And the fact that he time and again incentivizes his soldiers and commanders to do the same only solidifies this impression. His behaviour is conclusive; there are grand rewards to be gained by giving your enemies their just deserts simply for not being you. But that makes you not such a great man in my book.
But overall this book highlights specifics concerning a time and place and culture and person about which/whom I feel no connection. I have no interest in military conquests, in spite of their obvious impacts on: Caesar's own time, or conquests going on in our own time, or the impacts of Caesar's impacts on our time. So in other words I was in no way impressed by the accomplishments of either the man or those who defended themselves in any of these campaigns other than that of pity for people in all times who are so reduced to fear and violence, including Caesar himself. So I guess that I would summarize my reading as a rather dispassionate, perfunctory reading of the transition from a republic to an empire, in spite of it being a well edited text.
-----
The only personal impression with which I am left of the man himself is that I found it no small irony that someone who strategized and then ordered, as well as who personally gleefully joined in on the slaughter of thousands…and tens of thousands…and hundreds of thousands of his enemies could with such equanimity in the next paragraph so haughtily state how compassionate he was. But such is the mind of Gaius Julius Caesar. This comes through resoundingly in these writings. And the fact that he time and again incentivizes his soldiers and commanders to do the same only solidifies this impression. His behaviour is conclusive; there are grand rewards to be gained by giving your enemies their just deserts simply for not being you. But that makes you not such a great man in my book.
October 5, 2022
The footnotes ruined this book. The other five books that I have read in the Landmark series (Xenophon's Hellenika, Herodotus: The Histories, Xenophon's Anabasis, Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War, Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander) have been superbly edited. They have had maps and diagrams of battles in just the right places, and helpful footnotes.
Unfortunately, the editing of this volume of the Landmark Series served only to impede the reader. This edition would have been better if at least 80% of the footnotes had been omitted. It is not only that so many of the footnotes were unnecessary (thus constantly interrupting the flow of the book's narrative), they were detrimental. The most egregious examples are the several times the footnote acts as a spoiler for what is about to happen in the narrative: P. 149, n.5.24l. There are also several footnotes condescendingly telling the reader what should be noticed, or how the reader should interpret the tone of the text (e.g., sarcasm). Then there is the repeated use of the word "spurious" used when the correct word would be "interpolation." At times the text will refer to events described earlier in the book, and there will be an annoying footnote directing the reader to the section referred to, as if the reader could not remember what went before. Then there are the numerous and intrusive footnotes referring to the scholarly essays included in the volume (or to the several other essays available on a website devoted to this book), or to scholarly journals. As the essays have titles, the general reader can follow up on any subject of particular interest in the provided essays. As for the references to outside scholarly journals, it is unlikely that the articles will be easily available to any but those in academia.
Unfortunately, the editing of this volume of the Landmark Series served only to impede the reader. This edition would have been better if at least 80% of the footnotes had been omitted. It is not only that so many of the footnotes were unnecessary (thus constantly interrupting the flow of the book's narrative), they were detrimental. The most egregious examples are the several times the footnote acts as a spoiler for what is about to happen in the narrative: P. 149, n.5.24l. There are also several footnotes condescendingly telling the reader what should be noticed, or how the reader should interpret the tone of the text (e.g., sarcasm). Then there is the repeated use of the word "spurious" used when the correct word would be "interpolation." At times the text will refer to events described earlier in the book, and there will be an annoying footnote directing the reader to the section referred to, as if the reader could not remember what went before. Then there are the numerous and intrusive footnotes referring to the scholarly essays included in the volume (or to the several other essays available on a website devoted to this book), or to scholarly journals. As the essays have titles, the general reader can follow up on any subject of particular interest in the provided essays. As for the references to outside scholarly journals, it is unlikely that the articles will be easily available to any but those in academia.
July 10, 2023
Reading through the accounts of Caesar made it evident for me, life in the antics was very heavily influenced by prudence, fortune and great men. I will not go into too much detail why Caesar's work is extraordinary, the focus on logistics, knowledge of earthworks and camp-preparation, the impact of prudence, foresight on the battlefield, having proper intelligence etc, these continue to be staples of warfare up to this day.
Is Caesar's account an unbiased historical writing? Of course not, he was pushing his own agenda, enhancing his merits, while defacing those of his enemies. Although generally a lenient and merciful person, he did have his own share of statutorial executions, slaughters permitted by him and casual killing of civilians. He was not influenced by extreme morals, other than probably on the facade protecting the republic, but most likely below that his own self-interest and power.
I loved the description of the Gallic wars, how the different tribes interacted with each other, who were the traditional allies of Rome, how the wildcard of German mercenaries were employed by both sides etc.
There's a lot of information here, it's more like a story of his campaigns from Gaul to Hispania, it talks very little about Caesar as a person, rather focuses on Caesar as the general, his relationships with his soldiers and through what actions he was able to finish all those wars successfully. Evidently he knew human psychology very deeply to be able to manage the emotions of all those people and soldiers. The civil war parts leading up to the battle of Pharsalus is also interesting. Probably not all of these texts were written by him personally, but the tone is similar throughout the book, so all in all, the standard of writing is consistent.
Is Caesar's account an unbiased historical writing? Of course not, he was pushing his own agenda, enhancing his merits, while defacing those of his enemies. Although generally a lenient and merciful person, he did have his own share of statutorial executions, slaughters permitted by him and casual killing of civilians. He was not influenced by extreme morals, other than probably on the facade protecting the republic, but most likely below that his own self-interest and power.
I loved the description of the Gallic wars, how the different tribes interacted with each other, who were the traditional allies of Rome, how the wildcard of German mercenaries were employed by both sides etc.
There's a lot of information here, it's more like a story of his campaigns from Gaul to Hispania, it talks very little about Caesar as a person, rather focuses on Caesar as the general, his relationships with his soldiers and through what actions he was able to finish all those wars successfully. Evidently he knew human psychology very deeply to be able to manage the emotions of all those people and soldiers. The civil war parts leading up to the battle of Pharsalus is also interesting. Probably not all of these texts were written by him personally, but the tone is similar throughout the book, so all in all, the standard of writing is consistent.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews